Think outside the box. ;)

[MJ1]

Your alll getting single track minds and blocking out any sunlight.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/DSCF0032a_zpsebdf6480.jpg

...:eusa_wall:...

[holdover]

both shown are great snipers, have had them in the past and would say equal to, or better than an A4

[jgaynor]

both shown are great snipers, have had them in the past and would say equal to, or better than an A4

I would say both are definitely better than the A4 for the following reasons:
1. The basic A4 platform (the A3) was a wartime expedient used because it was available. Some of the alleged defects of the design like the inability to use stripper clips is not really a defect. Most WW2 snipers couldn't use stripper clips and a sniper's need for rapid fire is largely a myth.

2. The scope was an inexpensive commercial model again used because it was available. It was insufficiently rugged, insufficiently moisture proof, lacked a decent carrying case and did not really work that well with the Redfiled jr. Base and rings (the (W&E adjustment plate interferes with the rear ring cutting down on the useful eyerelief).

3. The Redfield Jr Base again was a commercial product used because it was available. Its chief advantage was it located the scope low over the bore. But every other country in the world had figured out that was needed on a snipers rifle was a compact rugged scope, in a rugged quick detachable mount. True the Redfield can be dismounted from from the rifle but at the risk of breaking or loosing the right hand windage screw. When replaced it might even come back to zero if the sniper has been eating his Wheaties and saying his prayers regularly.

4. Of course when a sniper scope is dismounted it needs a rugged carrying case. Ordnance, going for a sort of Trifecta of screw-ups provided a pretty useless canvas bag - more of a dust cover than anything else. The Marines at least got the design of the carrying case right on their M1903A1 sniper. And if you put an M84 into a case designed for an M73B1 you will probably tear the adjustment covers off getting the scope out again.

Designing a sniper's rifle first require a command decision that snipers, with all the related material, training and support were a necessary item in the Table of Organization and properly funded. Next the equipment research effort requires a lot of thought as to where the snipers would be deployed and under what conditions. For example, the Japanese dealt with the moisture problem by designing scopes without a lot of holes for adjustments. Granted that meant their snipers needed to train on that weird "Kentucky windage" reticle but it worked for them.

The US would not really get on the right track until Vietnam. The thing thats really interesting to me anyway is the fact that the Remington 700 based snipers first adopted by the USMC in 1966 bear a very strong external resemblance to the US M1918 sniper built on a "sporterized" M1917 action in WW1. The M1918 never maded it out of the prototype stage due to the end of the war and poor scope design but if we had hadd 50,000 M1918's in the Warehouse at Pearl Harbor we would have been in very good shape sniper wise.

Jim

[Nate]

Agreed, I have owned and fired both (and an A4) and an A4 can not compete. Personally, I liked the Mosen 91/30 the best even if it is a bit long and heavy. The best part is that both of these rifles have bullet drop compensating scopes while the A4 shooter would be cranking his elevation knob dozens of clicks even if he knew the range. Didn't mean to be harsh but that is my experience.

[MJ1]

Lots of good information.

....;)....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/d85b1c4f.jpg

[Col. Colt]

The 03A4's scope problem was simply due to wartime high demand for precision optics - the much better Lyman Alaskan (the Original "M73", before the M73b1 - the 330 scope militarized) was unavailable because Lyman got their optical lenses from B&L, who was overwhelmed with war work, and could not supply the lenses. Had the Alaskan been used, many of the complaints about poor sealing and lack of clarity, etc, would have gone away. Very few snipers ever remove their scopes, anyway - not a great idea, if your next shot must always "hit" precisely where aimed. Fortunately, the Alaskan is allowed in the Vintage Sniper Matches.

The rifles themselves, in my experience, are good shooters - with decent ammo. That is where the lack of committment equipment wise really failed, to go the last mile - to furnish "sniper grade" ammo to our snipers who really did need it. That, also, is not a problem in our Vintage matches.

The biggest problem, I think, was training. The US has always "demobed' their Snipers after each war - making you start all over again! CC

[goo]

i dunno, just guessing but i would think the average range for sniper kills in ww2 was well below 300 yards.
any of the above rifles would be more than adaquate for that. i'm sure there were 600+ yard kills but a small percentage. at those ranges the ammo becomes more important than the rifle and again, i dunno but i suspect most ww2 snipers used just plain old 'out of the can' ammo.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/46/113052944_e66dcc6b75_z.jpg

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/169/466485188_fc95a9197b.jpg